Not ironic. Nobody's supposed to like competition. And the best argument for the lottery is that the government monopoly helps limit the impact of organized crime. The opposite approach of the drug war.

12349876:Not ironic. Nobody's supposed to like competition. And the best argument for the lottery is that the government monopoly helps limit the impact of organized crime. The opposite approach of the drug war.

12349876:Not ironic. Nobody's supposed to like competition. And the best argument for the lottery is that the government monopoly helps limit the impact of organized crime. The opposite approach of the drug war.

The mafia is not going to run a multi-state powerball with nine-figure grand prizes or introduce fancy new scratch tickets every month?

You have a point on the original lottery games - replacing the black market "numbers game" with a 3 digit daily lotto was a good idea. But since then it has expanded into a huge revenue generating machine whose regressivity is only rivaled by cigarette taxes.

Since Virginia has joined the multistate lottery way too many jackpots go disproportionately to other states . Also added more numbers for bigger jackpots so theres no chance at all . I started getting one number right on a ticket with thirty or so numbers on it , so I just gave up playing .

How exactly is the lottery a scam? They don't lie to you about your odds, in fact that would be illegal.

So where's the scam? People know they have a small chance of winning but they play anyway. By their own choice, no one forces you to play, something I know from personal experience. Should we make it illegal for people to exercise their personal freedom to toss their money in the trash?

The phrase "a small chance of winning" is a huge overstatement of your chances. Try "microscopic" or maybe "subatomic". The notion that you, as an individual player, have a "chance" of winning the lottery at all is a demonstration of the dirty trick at work here. If the odds were really made clear, no one would ever play.

CodPor:Jack Lambert's Missing Teeth: People know they have a small chance of winning

The phrase "a small chance of winning" is a huge overstatement of your chances. Try "microscopic" or maybe "subatomic". The notion that you, as an individual player, have a "chance" of winning the lottery at all is a demonstration of the dirty trick at work here. If the odds were really made clear, no one would ever play.

I showed your post to my uncle, who won $1.5 million in the lottery (after taxes). He's still laughing at your ignorant ass.

12349876:Not ironic. Nobody's supposed to like competition. And the best argument for the lottery is that the government monopoly helps limit the impact of organized crime. The opposite approach of the drug war.

I was thinking about this just the other day. What I found I kept coming back to was the old quip about the lottery being an idiot tax. It occurred to me, we really do need one of those, and in this form.

Idiots are expensive to society, and their numbers only seem to be growing. It's never going to be politically feasible to directly tax idiocy, even assuming you could measure/quantify it like we do with IQ. (And, no -- being an idiot is not the same as having a low IQ.) Likewise, billing idiots directly for their excess costs to society is only ever going to be a limited solution. Sure, that's fine for the one-off, high-profile event like a needless search and rescue; and you'll get a little indirect offset from idiot-proxy excises, like sin taxes. But, neither one really does much for the cumulative effects of innumerable instances of direct, low-grade, mundane, and mostly anonymous idiocy -- which is where I suspect the real costs to society are really at.

So, why not make a game of it? Totally voluntary. Step right up, swipe the drool from your chin, and place a couple bucks on the ignorant illusion that you are somehow exempt from the laws of probability. I suspect there would be a high level of construct validity as well, since how much/often you play is probably a fairly accurate and reliable indicator of just how big of an idiot you are.

So where's the scam? People know they have a small chance of winning but they play anyway. By their own choice, no one forces you to play, something I know from personal experience. Should we make it illegal for people to exercise their personal freedom to toss their money in the trash?

CodPor:Jack Lambert's Missing Teeth: People know they have a small chance of winning

The phrase "a small chance of winning" is a huge overstatement of your chances. Try "microscopic" or maybe "subatomic". The notion that you, as an individual player, have a "chance" of winning the lottery at all is a demonstration of the dirty trick at work here. If the odds were really made clear, no one would ever play.

every lotto tix i've ever purchased has (approx.) odds listed on them. the odds are HORRIBLY against me, and i know this. however, as they say, "you can't win it if you're not in it".

i know many people have blown countless paychecks, money that should have gone to NEEDS, but i'd venture a guess that those are likely about 2 or 3% of the total number of lotto players everywhere.

of all my years playing lotto games, i've definitely lost more than i've spent, and the largest winnings i've ever claimed was $50 off a $1 or $2 scratcher (it was about 8 years ago, can't remember exact details), but i've won more off lotto than i have at horseraces, and aside from 1 $90+ payout, more than my casino gamblings

CodPor:Maestro1701: I showed your post to my uncle, who won $1.5 million in the lottery (after taxes).

One chucklehead gets lucky, and every other lottery-playing idiot doubles down on their stupidity. I'm sure your uncle is very proud of you.

And really, 1.5 million? People are actually willing to gamble on the astronomical lottery odds for that kind of payout?

yesif i can spend $1 to $5 a week on a lotto ticket (which i DON'T do, mainly because i forget to buy the tix)...maybe cut out a soda or a fast food meal to do so...for the remote chance of winning more in one go than i'll earn in 30+ years at my current salary, how does that make me an idiot?

terrible odds? you betcha!chance? still there...and it's cheap...and the proceeds go to public schools...or if i buy the tix while visiting my folks in arkansas, that's a "scholarship" lottery

/it is true thought that the probability of dying on the way to get a lottery ticket is higher than the probability of winning, but your poster violates a pet peeve of mine.

As a gambler I hate people who use "odds of" when they mean "chances of". They're not the same. Odds are the statement of a betting proposition, usually stated as being "against" the event, so that higher odds generally mean lower chances of an event occurring. The word "of" just muddies the waters. If someone asks what the odds "of" a horse winning are, the correct reply is something like "six to one against".